-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: maps as primary sources]
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:10:42 -0500
From: Nat Case <[log in to unmask]>


------------------
It seems to me the useful distinction between primary and secondary
sources in discussing prose, is whether the writer is writing from
his or her own experience, or is drawing on the previously written
experiences of others. It usually won;t matter whether the source in
question is an original MS, a facsimile, or a published edition
(though the latter may well frame the primary source with secondary
material).

In mapping, fieldwork and photoimages are primary, unless your
subject us the cartography itself; thus that great distortion map in
the Atlas of Early American History used secondary maps as its
primary source. In any of our maps, we have some elements that I
would consider primary (fieldwork, material gathered through original
research, etc) and others that are clearly secondary (We pretty much
rely on existing maps and surveys to form a framework for our new
artwork).

Hope this helps.

Nat Case
Hedberg Maps, Inc
www.hedbergmaps.com

>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: maps as primary sources
>Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:01:10 -0700
>From: Julie Sweetkind-Singer <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>------------------
>Hi all,
>
>I got this question from one of the students that took my map
>librarianship
>class at San Jose State's Library School this past summer.  I was hoping
>to
>get your thoughts
>
>
>
>>Are maps primary sources?
>>Do they just have to be the first version that comes out of a surveyor's
>>brain, or original GIS data?
>>Or, can they be anything that uses original data?
>>
>>On the surface, this sounds to me like a silly question, but since no one
>>I've asked in the New King library has a clue about the answer,
>>it has turned into a serious debate.
>>
>
>Here was my "off the cuff" answer to her.
>
>Now, as far as your reference question goes, I would say it depends, but
>in
>general, yes, I would call maps primary sources.  The strange things
>about
>maps is that they are a composite of everything that came before.  So, a
>detailed map of California shows the El Camino Real from San Diego to
>San
>Francisco.  That road, and before it the trail, has been around for a
>couple of hundred years.  It's on every map of the area you see.  Do you
>have to go back to the early maps to call them primary?  Do you only
>take
>manuscript maps as primary material?  We don't do that with books.
>
>Then, is GIS data primary material?  Only if it's the original work of
>an
>author.  In your GIS project, you may collect data points on your own,
>say
>the types of trees on the Stanford campus.  You could then lay this
>primary
>source information over the street data from Navtech or the Stanford
>Maps
>and Records office, etc.  Also, GIS data is simply that, data.  It in
>itself is not a map.  You must use the correct software in order to make
>it
>a map.
>
>***
>Any opinions?
>
>Julie
>
>
>Julie Sweetkind-Singer
>GIS & Map Librarian
>Branner Earth Sciences Library & Map Collections
>397 Panama Mall, M/C 2211
>Stanford University
>Stanford, CA  94305
>[log in to unmask]
>Phone:  650-725-1103
>Fax: 650-725-2534


--